|
|
|
|
|
Retail Supplier Says New York Utilities' Proposal To Recover Billing Compliance Costs From Retail Suppliers Is Premature, Expresses Concerns With Proposed Implementation Methods
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Family Energy said that a petition by the New York utilities to seek to recover from retail suppliers costs to implement a new law requiring, among other things, a side-by-side comparison of ESCO and default service rates on bills is premature, as Family Energy expressed concerns with both of the methods that utilities have proposed to provide related information to ESCOs
As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, the New York utilities have petitioned the New York PSC for authority to charge ESCOs for implementing shadow billing information, to be included in utility bills, and other aspects of General Business Law sections 349-d(9) and (10)
As previously reported, the new law requires that: (1) the "billing party" provide residential and small commercial customers with billing statements which include a side-by-side comparison of prices charged by ESCOs versus the "price" the customer would have paid had the customer been on default service, and (2) ESCOs provide an annual statement to the customer comparing the ESCO’s prices with the utility’s over the prior 12-month period.
The utilities seek to recover from ESCOs "all" costs to comply with GBL §§ 349-d(9) and (10), which includes placing the relevant comparison on utility bills, and providing info to ESCOs to allow ESCOs to provide such comparisons (either on a dual bill and/or under the annual notice described above)
One utility has proposed to recover implementation costs via an upfront charge to ESCOs of $11 per customer, plus ongoing maintenance costs (see full cost proposals here)
Family Energy said that the PSC should first establish via rulemaking the information to be provided under General Business Law sections 349-d(9) and (10), prior to determining and allowing any cost recovery
Although the law refers to a comparison of "price", the utilities are generally proposing to implement the side by side comparison as a comparison of total monthly cost, rather than a price-per-unit figure
Family Energy said that the rulemaking would establish, among other things, the required content for the comparisons (such as whether the comparison will be based on per unit figures or total bill amounts), and the appearance and placement of the Bill Message under Section 349-d(9)
Family Energy noted that the utilities' cost recovery petition did not include any sample bill pages reflecting the new comparisons
Furthermore, Family Energy said that the PSC needs to establish the price to compare to be used for the comparisons, noting that, for newly updated renewal notices, the PSC has in an order (subject to an open rehearing petition) held that ESCOs are required to use the 12-month trailing average utility rate for comparison disclosure purposes. However, Family Energy said that a rehearing request from RESA proposes the use of the current actual price to compare (not an average) for the renewal notices, with RESA arguing that such current PTC is more relevant for a going-forward renewal decision
Family said, "Both the Bill Message and Annual Statement are intended to enhance price transparency to consumers through the provision of comparative ESCO and utility rate information. A rulemaking to establish the utility 'price to compare' benchmark is needed to effectively accomplish this task."
"Central to that effort should be identifying what constitutes the utility price to compare benchmark for purposes of the GBL 349-d disclosures," Family said
Family further said that a rulemaking is needed to address timing issues for the ESCO provision of the comparison info to customers, and the interaction of the 12-month deadline and the provision of the relevant utility price data from the utilities to ESCOs
Addressing the utilities' proposal for sharing the data with ESCOs, Family expressed concerns with both proposed mechanisms.
For Con Edison and Orange and Rockland, the utilities propose a new charge code under EDI that will will allow the utility to communicate with ESCOs to fulfill ESCOs' 12-month reporting obligations. This information will be added as new charge codes in the existing “810 URR-Invoice Transaction – Utility Rate Ready” implementation guide.
Family said, "To be clear, this would not be a one-sided obligation for ConEd and O&R. ESCOs will also have to redevelop the 810 transaction in order to use the information and will require time to do so. The 810 transaction is a critical transaction to ensure that billing is being done correctly."
Family further raised concerns due to recent billing errors from implementation of a new billing system at ConEd
"ConEd recently replaced its billing system, which had been a source of longstanding ESCO complaints. Given the nascent state of ConEd’s billing system, it is unclear if this proposed change will cause instability and possibly create new issues," Family said
National Fuel Gas Distribution, NYSEG, RGE, Niagara Mohawk, KEDLI, and KEDNY propose to provide the required comparison data to ESCOs through existing or enhanced secure utility platforms, including secure web portals or other secure data-delivery platforms
Family said of this mechanism, "Sharing the utility rate data for the Annual Statement in this manner presents challenges. In order to retrieve the data from the platform it will require manual intervention from the ESCO and then the ESCO will need to manually use that data to populate each customer’s Annual Statement. It will be a time- and resource-intensive process. There are also questions about when and how the data will be available on the utility platforms. Customer bill cycles don’t start and end precisely at the beginning and end of the month. ESCOs will need the data on a bill cycle to bill cycle basis. It is also unclear in what format the data will be shared. If, for example, it is in Microsoft Excel, the data could be truncated. There are other practical concerns with this data sharing method. This includes the potential unavailability of the utility platform when the ESCO needs access for Annual Statement generation purposes."
Family also said that it is unclear how cancel/rebill scenarios are to be handled.
"Cancel/rebills don’t happen immediately. They can occur months later. In the case of cancel/rebills, it is unclear if and when the utilities will make corrected data available for ESCO use on a revised Annual Statement," Family said
Family concluded that, "The cost recovery proposal in the JU Petition is based on assumptions of billing and IT changes without the benefit of a Commission rulemaking that finalizes compliance obligations under the new law. The consideration of the cost recovery proposal should be suspended until a rulemaking is concluded."
Case 98-M-1343 et al.
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
September 2, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Enrollment & Rate Management Director - Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Strategic Sales Channels Manager - Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Controller - Retail Provider
• NEW -- Manager, Product I - VXRetail (Retail Energy)
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|